On 24/04/2022 14:09, Tim Streater wrote:
> where Ti is input temperature, and To is output temperature and both are in
> Kelvin (K). Steam starts to attack even stainless steel above 600C or so, so
> if your input temp is 600C and your output temp is 101C (so the steam doesn't
> condense), your efficiency is:

I think you'll find the output of a steam turbine is usually well below
atmospheric pressure, and this permits a lower temperature.

Andy

In message <t449pn$jhl$1@dont-email.me>, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes
>On 24/04/2022 14:09, Tim Streater wrote:
>> where Ti is input temperature, and To is output temperature and both are in
>> Kelvin (K). Steam starts to attack even stainless steel above 600C or so, so
>> if your input temp is 600C and your output temp is 101C (so the steam doesn't
>> condense), your efficiency is:
>
>I think you'll find the output of a steam turbine is usually well below
>atmospheric pressure, and this permits a lower temperature.

Idiot alert:-)

I have a vague recollection from an engineering course some 60 years ago
that overall steam turbine efficiency is limited by the latent heat of
water (creating/condensing steam).
The figure we were given was 44%.
Research was underway at that time with MagnetoHydroDynamics? to get a
bit more for your kilo of coal.

--
Tim Lamb

On 24 Apr 2022 at 18:21:17 BST, #Paul <#Paul> wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr 2022 at 14:18:02 BST, #Paul <#Paul> wrote:
>>> You literally have no clue. The applications and techniques (and
>>> interpretations) used in quantum physics have continuously evolved
>>> over the last century and in no sense - barring some teaching
>>> examples - has quantum physics remained static. And espeically
>>> in terms of understanding, designing, and testing, material
>>> properties at the level of molecules, clusters and even in bulk.
>>> And even in optics - there are things being done in quantum optics
>>> now that were not on anyones radar 50 years ago, let alone 100
>>> (e.g. quantum imaging using undetected photons). Just, for example,
>>> because the photo electric effect was proposed a century ago
>>> has little bearing on the work and understanding required to optimise
>>> either the materials used, or the internals of a modern solar panel.
>>
>> These are just applications of the basic principles, which have
>> *not* changed.
>
> Hilarious -- an understanding of the basic principles, while
> usually necessary, is not in any way sufficient when you want
> to get any real work done. And the insights by those working
> 100 years ago, whilst brilliant at the time, are not the same
> as a modern understanding.

That's not what we are talking about - which is whether the basic principles
have changed or not, and they haven't.

--
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know what the evidence shows." -- Richard Dawkins

On 24/04/2022 20:52, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 24/04/2022 14:09, Tim Streater wrote:
>> where Ti is input temperature, and To is output temperature and both
>> are in
>> Kelvin (K). Steam starts to attack even stainless steel above 600C or
>> so, so
>> if your input temp is 600C and your output temp is 101C (so the steam
>> doesn't
>> condense), your efficiency is:
>
> I think you'll find the output of a steam turbine is usually well below
> atmospheric pressure, and this permits a lower temperature.
>
yes, but the advantages gained from going from 100°C to say 50°C are not
great

typically at 600°C which is *well* above any practical boiler the
efficiences are

100+273
1 - -------------- = 57%
600+273

versus

50+273
1 - -------------- = 63%
600+273

A gain, and worth the super large condensers, but not an order of
magnitude gain

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 24/04/2022 22:09, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <t449pn$jhl$1@dont-email.me>, Vir Campestris
> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes
>> On 24/04/2022 14:09, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> where Ti is input temperature, and To is output temperature and both
>>> are in
>>> Kelvin (K). Steam starts to attack even stainless steel above 600C or
>>> so, so
>>> if your input temp is 600C and your output temp is 101C (so the steam
>>> doesn't
>>> condense), your efficiency is:
>>
>> I think you'll find the output of a steam turbine is usually well
>> below atmospheric pressure, and this permits a lower temperature.
>
> Idiot alert:-)
>
> I have a vague recollection from an engineering course some 60 years ago
> that overall steam turbine efficiency is limited by the latent heat of
> water (creating/condensing steam).
> The figure we were given was 44%.

In practice sort of yes, but that boils down to how hot you can
practically superheat your steam.

certainly getting the water to condense gets the last drop out.

In practice big coal power statins and nucleart plants are around 37%.

> Research was underway at that time with MagnetoHydroDynamics? to get a
> bit more for your kilo of coal.
>
I seem to remember that as well.
Another 'save the planet' idea that never came to anything for reasons
we have all forgotten

Fuel cells also.

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2022 at 18:21:17 BST, #Paul <#Paul> wrote:
>>> These are just applications of the basic principles, which have
>>> *not* changed.
>>
>> Hilarious -- an understanding of the basic principles, while
>> usually necessary, is not in any way sufficient when you want
>> to get any real work done. And the insights by those working
>> 100 years ago, whilst brilliant at the time, are not the same
>> as a modern understanding.
>
> That's not what we are talking about - which is whether the basic
> principles have changed or not, and they haven't.

I get that. And *I'm* cautioning that a simplistic and dated view
of "basic principles" might result in conclusions of dubious
value.

As to whether basic principle might be seen as having changed or not
(particularly e.g. in EM or QM) is an interesting question. In one
sense Maxwell's equations are the same as the original by-component
ones, even if now expressed in the language of differential forms.
However, there is a very reasonable argument to be made that the basic
principles underlying the formulation of EM - as now understood - is
utterly different. In fact, in different sub-fields, things that might
be thought of as basic principles are not always seen the same way. In
optics (even quantum optics), E and H are typically regarded as the
fundamental EM fields; whereas for those more interested in relativity
(or differential forms) it is instead E & B.

And QM does not escape this sort of thing either, with quite
interesting attempts to rederive QM by making only the most minimal
set of assumptions (or "basic principles"), but in a fundamentally
*abstract* way, quite at odds with the original somewhat ad hoc
formulations. Or what about all those category theory enthusiasts?

#Paul

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 16:39:05 UTC+1, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:48:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> >> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
> >>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:

> >>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
> >>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
> >>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
> >>>>> say it.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
> >>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
> >>>>
> >>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
> >>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
> >>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
> >>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
> >>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...
> >>
> >> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
> >> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
> >> extremely destructive for everyone.
> >>
> >> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
> >> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
> >> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
> >> put it mildly
> >>
> >Whereas the idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to
> >do lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
> >environment with multiple windmills that don't even work reliably, is
> >apparently laudable?

> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?

they're powered by wind. When it blows

> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.

meaningless

> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
> unreliable.

it does :)

They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
> windmills.

meaningless

> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.

cat belling

> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
> precariously built nuclear reactors.

not a big challenge

> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.

no power source is entirely safe

> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 16:46:52 UTC+1, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:42:14 +0100, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> >> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
> >>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
> >>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
> >>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have been
> >>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the aptitude to
> >>>>> say it.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
> >>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
> >>>>
> >>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in no more
> >>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because "wind
> >>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs and
> >>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is green.
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
> >>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable energy'...
> >>
> >> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
> >> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
> >> extremely destructive for everyone.
> >>
> >> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
> >> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
> >> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
> >> put it mildly
> >>
> >
> >So what is your solution to a UK reliable energy source of the future?
> >You have ruled out gas and oil and probably nuclear but what is your
> >suggestion for the backup for the current intermittency of the current
> >solar and wind and what alternatives do you suggest?

> There are various storage and conversion+storage solutions.

none of which are feasible on the requiered scale

> I'm not an engineer

it shows

> but I do know when I'm being scammed and
> bullshitted by the lovers of big bucks at any cost.

you don't even understand the basics

On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 17:25:40 UTC+1, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:52:52 +0100, Harry Bloomfield Esq
> <a...@harrym1byt.plus.com> wrote:
>
> >Mike Halmarack brought next idea :
> >> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
> >> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
> >> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
> >> put it mildly
> >
> >Your solution to providing the essential near 100% backup for wind
> >generation is what exactly? No wind = no power, unless there is
> >adequate conventional power generation.

> The tide keeps going in and out even when the wind isn't blowing.

it doesn't, the motion is sinusoidal

> What about diverting shit into methane digesters to provide gas and
> fertiliser instead of dumping it into the rivers and sea?
> There are multiple ways of producing relatively clean energy.

Yes, but not enough & not consistently & not at sensible prices.

> Saving
> energy too.

it costs a lot & uses a lot of energy to implement energy saving systems.

> Use them in combination, then adapt to the limitations.

Greenies show no comprehension of how things would work on a budget of 4w per household which turns off randomly for around 4 hours per day. Nor the financial destruction that would result to industry & business, nor how that would impact on our out of work lives. It would make tis a 3rd world country unable to afford the measures you propose.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:55:50 +1000, Animal <tabbypurr@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 16:39:05 UTC+1, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:48:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On 11/04/2022 14:54, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:56:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> >> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 11/04/2022 12:36, alan_m wrote:
>> >>>> On 11/04/2022 12:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:48, newshound wrote:
>
>> >>>>>> https://watt-logic.com/2022/04/11/cost-of-renewables/
>> >>>>> What I love about Kathryn, is that she says exactly what I have
>> been
>> >>>>> trying to say, much better than I have the patience of the
>> aptitude to
>> >>>>> say it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The problem is that a lot of people are now convinced that wind and
>> >>>> solar are "free" and the energy they produce should be very cheap.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Social media is full of windmill enthusiasts who also believe in
>> no more
>> >>>> Nuclear and turning off gas and coal in the next few years because
>> "wind
>> >>>> is working". These people also tend to be on totally green tariffs
>> and
>> >>>> believe that ALL the gas and electricity they are receiving is
>> green.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Yes, it amazes me to find that there are people out there who still
>> >>> apparently 'believe in man made climate change' and 'renewable
>> energy'...
>> >>
>> >> I do. I believe in both. I believe that fossil fuel is ony
>> >> advantageous to those with vested financial interests in it, and
>> >> extremely destructive for everyone.
>> >>
>> >> The idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents to do
>> >> lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>> >> environment with multiple mini nuclear reactors is very disturbing to
>> >> put it mildly
>> >>
>> >Whereas the idea of allowing the present gang of corrupt incompetents
>> to
>> >do lucrative deals to boost their offshore accounts by splathering the
>> >environment with multiple windmills that don't even work reliably, is
>> >apparently laudable?
>
>> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
>
> they're powered by wind. When it blows
>
>> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
>
> meaningless
>
>> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
>> unreliable.
>
> it does :)
>
> They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
>> windmills.
>
> meaningless
>
>> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.
>
> cat belling
>
>> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
>> precariously built nuclear reactors.
>
> not a big challenge
>
>> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
>> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.

> no power source is entirely safe

That is mindless bullshit with the small hand held solar panels.

>> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.

On Tuesday, 12 April 2022 at 14:54:58 UTC+1, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:42:49 PM UTC+1, wrights...@f2s.com wrote:
> > On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> > > We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
> > > to the limitations.
> > By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not prepared
> > to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I must.
> >
> > Bill
> Your lifestyle and wealth is already in the process of being degraded in a big way.
> The only saving grace for you Bill is that you can blame Jeremy Corbyn.#
>
> The Fossil Fuel Roadshow and their +1ers are mob handed in this thread, so I'm not going to respond to every poke.
>
> There are scientists, engineers and economists who are not in thrall to the fossil fuel industry, working on developing and optimising renewable energy systems. Are they doing so in the knowledge that it's impractical and bound to fail?

Either yes or they're incompetent.

> No, they believe in what they're doing.

they're making money.

> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists, engineers and economists are fallible?

clearly there are many that are only there to extract money.

> You wouldn't believe this was possible reading the posts of the self proclaimed professionals writing here .